|
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Audio Interview with Mr. Neuswanger:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/play_mp3.asp?id=856
Mr. Neuswanger's response to comments posted on The Next Bite Muskie forums:
Attachments
----------------
 Broodstock Source Defense by Neuswanger 4-8-08 (1).doc (31KB - 621 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Listening to it now Steve, nice job! I, for one, am very grateful that a guy in Dave's position would take the time to post here on MF, and then grant these types of interviews. Kudos to DaveN on this...it is appreciated!
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/8/2008 11:21 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | I second that as well. Thanks Dave. And Steve.
Corey Meyer |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thank you Steve and Dave for the interview, great stuff.
After reading the discussion on the next bite and listening to the interview I think there are still a number of conflicting opinions on where the Wisconsin Musky Program should go. Maybe not where it should go but how fast it should get there.
The current brood stock plan appears to be a good one from my perspective. Priority is being placed on insuring genetic diversity, not necessarily preserving genetics as some seem to think. (I’ll touch on that later) 20 different females and 60 different males from 5 rotating naturally reproducing lakes seems to insure that. NUMBER ONE priority should be ensuring the survival of the population; this system appears to take this into account.
I believe that goal number two is where the conflict comes in. The majority of musky fishermen want trophy fish, most feel that should be at least goal number two, if not goal number one. The question many musky fishermen have, is that even a goal of the WDNR? I personally believe it is but to get there preservation, always takes precedence. For example not stocking Leech Lake fish into native waters, in those cases they are attempting to preserve existing genetics, and are trying to avoid the possibility of out breeding depression.
From the “DRAFT Wisconsin Muskellunge Brood Stock Management Plan”:
“When collecting eggs, use a nested stratified, random design across spawning season and fish size. It is an absolute must to avoid size, age, spawning time, sex ratio, weight, etc., discrimination in relation to selecting the individual fish for spawning. The most pressing of these issues in relation to muskellunge is time of spawning and size of fish. It is, however, permissible to avoid sick or deformed fish when selecting spawners.”
I think if there was some way to insure the above in any specific year class of Brood fish everyone would be happy. Notice the emphasis that is placed on “time of spawning” and “size of fish”. If I am reading that correctly they want a random cross section of all sizes big and small. If musky fishermen where ensured that some of the brood would be trophy fish then I think everyone would be happy. What we don’t want to see is what happened for years on Bone, where the sample set was highly loaded to smaller sized fish.
Maybe if fish of all sizes aren’t captured from the source lake, then a backup lake could be used to fill in any potential missing size structure.
I think this is the major concern that caused the stink on “The Next Bite” and here, the worry that the source lake will not offer any trophy fish. I know what will be said by some now, “How do I know that the source fish won’t grow into trophy size, or doesn’t carry trophy genetics?” I’ll answer that right now, “I don’t……But I know FOR SURE a trophy fish carries trophy genetics, and that makes me happier and alleviates many of my concerns about the future of Wisconsin Musky Fishing” Plus the brood management plan calls for using all size fish and that SHOULD include trophy fish as well as small fish.
Plus it’s a VERY GOOD public relations move, there is no way to argue that there are no trophy genetic in the current year class of fish if at least one trophy fish was stripped.
All that being said, I’ll ask one question, I am hoping Dave is still paying attention. What was the size distribution of brood used the last two years, from the Chip and Butternutt, and what happens if no big fish are captured from Moose?
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | A few more things since I wrote my previous post:
In all the discussion here and on the other site, I did not see one suggestion for a better choice. Lots of opinions on how bad of a choice Moose was, but no suggestions of other better lake choices, that meet the criteria.
Right now maybe they don’t exist and lakes that have been stocked need to be used. I know if I was asked what lakes I thought would be good Brood Stock sources here in Eastern Wisconsin, my top three choices would all be lakes that where stocked in the past, but are now all on the no stock list, but I know these lakes have the desired size distribution. The longer they go without being stocked the more genetically divers they become, correct?
One more thing, once these source lakes are determined, wouldn’t it make sense to protect them with a 50” size limit. There would ensure there future ability to thrive. There should be no state vote either, plan and simple WDNR needs these lakes to continue the stocking program they should use emergency powers to protect them.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Mike I don't have any idea what the size of the fish from Butternut were, but I do know that a 51" and a 49" female and a 30lb, 45" male were captured on the Chip.
I have a problem with people like Mr. Benson that try to present their opinions as facts. IMO [...] the WDNR has a sound plan and their new program will do a lot of good for our fisheries in the future.
I just listened to the audio interview with Dave Neuswanger and I found it very interesting and informative. I would like to thank Dave for taking the time to do the interview. [...]
[...] |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Tom, Corey, Mike and Troy...
Thanks for the kind words of support, guys. It is appreciated more than you know.
Mike, Troy was "spot on" in answering your question about the biggest fish spawned on the Chippewa Flowage in 2006. In 2007, we used 6 fish over 40 inches at Butternut Lake. What many folks don't realize is that we also used some large fish (upper 40-inch range and 25-30 pounds) in 2007 from Lac Courte Oreilles and Whitefish lakes when we came up 5 quarts short at Butternut of the volume of fertilized eggs needed for annual production at the Spooner hatchery. (Some fish at Butternut spawned in an early-warming bay while there was still ice in the middle of the lake, so we missed them! Live and learn...)
Despite the larger fish, we would rather NOT have resorted to LCO (1 quart of eggs) and Whitefish (4 quarts of eggs) to fulfill the 2007 production quota at Spooner, because both lakes have been dependent upon stocking for decades now. But the choice was to use those lakes or fail to meet the production quota for the year. With good reason to believe LCO has not changed genetically over time, we were a bit more comfortable using it as a back-up. And fortunately, Whitefish is so deep that it warms later and provides an emergency "go to" place for muskie eggs in the event of shortfall elsewhere. In summary, the Spooner hatchery used mostly eggs from Butternut, but a few from LCO and a significant number from Whitefish for 2007 production -- good diversity of sources (and sizes) to be sure, but not exactly according to plan. My hat is off to the hatchery crew for coping with the risks inherent in a new protocol and getting the job done.
Because I am focused on what's happening in the Upper Chippewa Basin, I have no idea what number or size of fish were spawned at the Woodruff hatchery in the Headwaters Basin. But I am pleased with the wide size range of fish we used for Spooner hatchery production in 2006 and 2007.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 154
Location: Appleton, WI | I agreee that it is awesome for Dave to both post here and do the radio interview. Communication will do an awfull lot to help with these misunderstandings and build trust on both sides. I agree the preservation of the genetic diversity is very important. Thanks Dave
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thanks for the response Dave, you are a great source of information, and I think it speaks very highly of you and your commitment to the Wisconsin Fishery that you are willing to come on this site and answers questions. People may disagree, but nobody can ever say they aren’t getting answers to questions. At least the ones you have the answers to.
Again Thanks
It’s good to hear big fish where used in both years of the new egg taking process. Many will say upper 25-30 pound upper 40” fish are not the trophies they are looking for, but it’s a heck of a lot better than what was happening in the past. Hopefully that pattern will continue.
I will try and figure out what lakes where used over in this part of the state, if I do I will post the info here, I am sure there are more people interested than just me.
Dave, what do you think about protecting these Brood Lakes once that are all determined, is that something the DNR management is considering?
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | So with the controversy of Moose, what happens when you net the lake and get no fish over say 45", or that all fish fall within a tight range. Would the plan be to use the eggs? Is there a minimum size range on the fish in sampling for the eggs to be used?
Thanks
Troyz |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| MIKE ROBERTS asked: "Dave, what do you think about protecting these Brood Lakes once that are all determined, is that something the DNR management is considering?"
DAVE: Mike, note there is a question on the 2008 spring hearing questionnaire to raise the Chippewa Flowage muskellunge length limit from 45" to 50" starting in spring of 2009. We hope folks will support it, not only because it will be good for our broodstock lake, but also because it should help us to achieve the angler-influenced size structure objectives that appeared in the Chippewa Flowage Fishery Management Plan of August, 2007.
That said, I don't think we can universally apply a 50" minimum length limit to all broodstock lakes. Butternut Lake in Price County is a good example. We actually have too many fish there currently. A higher minimum length limit would only exacerbate the problem. What we need at Butternut is a protective slot limit (for example, protect all fish 40-50 inches long) so we can thin out some overabundant small males yet protect fast-growing fish (mostly females) when they reach the protected slot at 40 inches. Problem is, I cannot convince even a majority of my professional colleagues this is a good idea, so we may be several years away from employing slot limits as a tool for managing muskie waters, including broodstock lakes.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 4/9/2008 7:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| TROYZ asked: "So with the controversy of Moose, what happens when you net the lake and get no fish over say 45", or that all fish fall within a tight range. Would the plan be to use the eggs? Is there a minimum size range on the fish in sampling for the eggs to be used?"
DAVE: Over the past couple years under the new protocol, we've spawned female muskellunge as small as 30 inches and as large as 51 inches. We've used males from 27 to 45 inches long. I don't expect any problems obtaining a wide enough size range of fish in the future. And as far as we know, any given 30-inch female may be a young fish with superior genetics that will produce offspring with trophy potential, while the 50-inch female may be old and be producing eggs of poor quality due to senescence. But at this time, there is no reason to believe that any given mating in the Chippewa Flowage, Butternut Lake, or Moose Lake will not yield fish with trophy-size potential.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 4/9/2008 7:57 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| I am just thinking out loud. But rather than go to a "possible" problem like Moose and avoid public outcry why not go back to the Chip and pit tag the fish used so as to not use them again in the future. Assuring diversity and still getting a KNOWN potential.
How about coming to Iowa and collecting, I think our original fish are from Big McKenzie way back when. Could be wrong on that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| ChadG wrote: "I am just thinking out loud. But rather than go to a "possible" problem like Moose and avoid public outcry why not go back to the Chip and pit tag the fish used so as to not use them again in the future. Assuring diversity and still getting a KNOWN potential."
DAVE: None of the most knowledgable muskellunge biologists in Wisconsin believe that Moose Lake is a "possible problem" as you suggest Chad. And "avoiding public outcry" does not compete well with conserving genetic integrity as a basis for our decisions. I explained during the podcast why it's important to rotate among several lakes. It's not enough to use different fish within a lake. We're already planning to PIT-tag all brood fish so they are NEVER used again in a subsequent 5-year rotation in a given lake. We must use different lakes with slightly different genetic stocks if we are to maximize genetic diversity and reap the benefits of that policy in the long term.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thanks again for the responses Dave, good to hear ideas to protect these brood sources are at least being talked about. I agree a 50” limit across the board may not be the best, but if there is even a little worry, I think something should be done. Let us know if you need “Grass Roots” help.
For anyone interested:
The hatchery at Woodruff took eggs from North Twin in 2006, the Moen Chain in 2007, and plans to take eggs from Lake Tomahawk in 2008. There was no info on fish size, but I don’t think anyone over here will argue that those are not excellent lake choices. Moens has lots of the golden brutes that we love so much when they get over 25 pounds, I don’t see any problem with spreading some of those genes around. I am crossing my fingers for a Wisconsin River source in the future.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| Thanks for your responses Dave. I am going to respectfully disagree with you on both issues.
If I could,
Will the DNR scap the egg taking at Moose Lake if no fish over 40" show up in the nets? I think it is a real possibility.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | ChadG,
I believe the answers to all of what you disagree with is already posted above. I noticed some folks claiming the fish won't be any different than those in the Chip, yet at the same time some claim they won't get big...
If I remember correctly Dave mentioned in the interview and in a post that the biologists do not feel there's anything genetically negative in the Moose Lake fish, do I have that right Mr. Neuswanger? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| My disagreements go to using a KNOWN over an unknown. Moose is a maybe other waters are not. I would think in the interest of diversity that if you can't provide the upper end of the size spectrum to go with the smaller size you would have to scap the mission. Appears to be a one sided issue at this point.
I think an argument could be made that the fish in Moose have genetically adapted to the rough conditions in Moose. A slower growing smaller fish doesn't have the requirements that a large fast growing fish does thus the small/slower fish survive. Mother nature did her part in making sure the species survived.
The forage arguement could be debunked at Plantagenet and Big Lake in MN. Both lakes produce 50's yet the Big lake fish for most part are skinny, Plantangenet fish are thick. If forage makes a fish unable to reach a length then it should prove out there.
Anyway this has been all been said before and will be said again. Dave Thanks again for you continued responses, it proves someone is listening.
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Dave, I have a question about Whitefish. Is Dr. Sloss doing any genetics studies with Whitefish muskies?
If I understand his preliminary work correctly, it showed that all of the stocking in LCO did not have an adverse effect on the genetics of the LCO fish. I would think that the LCO fish would be a great source of eggs but I imagine that capturing enough fish would be a problem in LCO. What is the population of Whitefish like? Is there natural reproduction in Whitefish?
Interesting info on Turtle-Flambeau. IMO another example of the lake itself having a big say in how big the fish can get.
Mike, thanks for the information on the stocking in the Northeast.
Edited by Bytor 4/10/2008 8:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| TROY SCHOONOVER (Bytor) asked: Dave, I have a question about Whitefish. Is Dr. Sloss doing any genetics studies with Whitefish muskies?
DAVE: Troy, when we first went into Whitefish for broodstock late last spring to obtain the final 4 quarts of eggs needed at the Spooner hatchery, we did not know what to expect. But we got lucky and made three successful 3:1 matings. We collected fin tissue samples for genetic analysis from those fish. I'm sure they will be analyzed in Dr. Sloss' laboratory at UWSP. Problem is, in order to accurately characterize a genetic stock, Dr. Sloss recommends a sample size of 50 fish. So I doubt that we'll have a real good picture of Whitefish Lake muskie genetics based upon our sample of fewer than 20 fish. But at least we'll know some things about the fish we used for propagation.
TROY: If I understand his preliminary work correctly, it showed that all of the stocking in LCO did not have an adverse effect on the genetics of the LCO fish.
DAVE: I'll amend your statement slightly by stating that there does not seem to have been any significant CHANGE in genetic stock composition of LCO muskies since the mid 1900s, as measured by examining the pattern of allelic variation at 13 microsatellite loci. (Sorry about the jargon... not sure how else to put it.) This state-of-the-art analysis is a reasonable indicator that LCO muskies have not changed significantly over time. But we cannot rule out the possibility that one or more polymorphic genes (among the tens of thousands of genes present) not associated with the microsatellite loci examined could have changed over time for better or worse. Dr. Sloss' results strongly suggest that such changes are unlikely, but not impossible. I realize this statement represents a degree of nuance not commonly seen or appreciated on web forums. But it's the most accurate statement I can make at this time, and I know that you are a person who seeks the most accurate assessment possible.
TROY: I would think that the LCO fish would be a great source of eggs but I imagine that capturing enough fish would be a problem in LCO. What is the population of Whitefish like? Is there natural reproduction in Whitefish?
DAVE: LCO would be a great source IF we KNEW we had natural reproduction there. We'll be working on that question more in the future. But as it stands now, we have no DIRECT evidence of natural reproduction (capture of young-of-year muskies in fall electrofishing samples) in either LCO or Whitefish. I personally suspect this has more to do with fish community composition and habitat conditions than with any genetic deficiency with respect to reproductive fitness. LCO has lots of northern pike in the large, weedy, early-warming bay where almost all muskies go to spawn. And Whitefish has a substantial population of largemouth bass (which DO eat little muskies) in addition to some northern pike. So the muskies may spawn, their eggs may hatch, and hatchlings may get just big enough to feed other predators in those two lakes. But the bottom line is this: We don't yet know why we see no young-of-year muskies in fall electrofishing samples in these waters. There is even some INDIRECT evidence that muskellunge DO reproduce naturally in LCO, based simply upon the absence of change in the genetic markers we have examined over time, indicating that STOCKED fish from other sources have had little or no influence on the LCO adult population. Obviously, we need to keep probing until we understand these complex systems so we can make decisions with greater confidence in the future. For now, BAK (Best Available Knowledge) suggests we should go to these lakes for broodstock only in emergencies, unless and until we learn that natural reproduction IS contributing significantly if not exclusively to the adult muskie populations there.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Thanks Dave. |
|
| |
|
| Click on this link to see WDNR document 'Lake List for Musky Genetics Characterization Study "that classifies, Moose, Spider and Callahan as SLOW GROWTH.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/MuskyGeneticsStudyLakeListDraft1.pdf
DRAFT Lake List for Musky Genetics Characterization Study - NOR (draft 02/08/2006 by Steve AveLallemant)
CH NR1 Sawyer Moose Lake 1670 Slow Stocked from 1930-1960's based on Lake
Association records, May emigrate from Clam Lake
Chain upstream
CH NR1 Sawyer Tiger Cat Chain 1911 Slow X
PS: Bob Benson speaks the truth and simply wants the best for Wisconsin's Muskie Fisheries - for current and future generations.
|
|
| |
|
| Why did Dave not share this or discuss this in the interview? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Guest - 4/12/2008 2:33 PM
Click on this link to see WDNR document 'Lake List for Musky Genetics Characterization Study "that classifies, Moose, Spider and Callahan as SLOW GROWTH.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/MuskyGeneticsStudyLakeListDraft1.pdf
DRAFT Lake List for Musky Genetics Characterization Study - NOR (draft 02/08/2006 by Steve AveLallemant )
CH NR1 Sawyer Moose Lake 1670 Slow Stocked from 1930-1960's based on Lake
Association records, May emigrate from Clam Lake
Chain upstream
CH NR1 Sawyer Tiger Cat Chain 1911 Slow X
PS: Bob Benson speaks the truth and simply wants the best for Wisconsin's Muskie Fisheries - for current and future generations.
DAVE: I will attempt, just once, to address this confusing post by our "Guest," even though I generally refrain from responding to people who post in anonymity. This will be my last word in response to mystery guests.
“GUEST” in a post that has since been deleted for obvious reasons: [Quoting me in an earlier post…] “None of the most knowledgeable muskellunge biologists in Wisconsin believe that Moose Lake is a "possible problem" as you suggest Chad." LOL (by "Guest")
DAVE: And I stand by that statement. It was made in response to assertions that Moose Lake muskellunge had GENETIC problems, as if anyone would actually know something like that at this time. Mr. Avelallemant is one of those knowledgeable muskellunge biologists in Wisconsin who does NOT suspect GENETIC problems at Moose Lake (even though he acknowledges that muskellunge there grow slowly) and who supports our collection of hatchery broodstock there (because he clearly recognizes the low-productivity basis for slow growth there).
“GUEST”: Why did Dave not share this or discuss this in the interview?
DAVE: Because I shared this information and discussed it in the linked document that Mr. Worrall attached to his first posting at the beginning of this discussion thread. Did “Guest” bother to read that? As a reminder, I will reprint that part of the conversation below:
BOB BENSON (at TheNextBite.com): He [speaking of me, I presume] will talk about needing fish of all sizes, but Butternut and Moose do not have fish of all sizes (no large fish even on two large lakes).
DAVE: False. Until the mid 1990s, Butternut had a reputation as one of the best trophy lakes in the area. I have several photos of fish >50 inches from Butternut. Muskies there became overpopulated and size structure declined in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Their genetic potential to attain trophy size did not disappear within the span of one generation of fish. By the laws of heritability, that would be impossible. Moose Lake does not have many big fish, but size structure has been improving in recent years, even according to WDNR critics. Moose Lake is very unproductive (VERY dark water, so low light penetration & photosynthesis), which is why muskies, walleyes, and even crappies grow slowly in Moose Lake.
BOB BENSON (at TheNextBite.com): The assumption is that they'd grow large elsewhere - the same assumption MN used with Shoepacks.
DAVE: True. But in this case, we have no reason to believe these fish will perform poorly with respect to ultimate size attainment. There is valid cause for concern about the ability of Shoepack fish to get big.
P.S. by DAVE: Readers who care about the truth may wish to revisit that linked document that Mr. Worrall posted at the beginning of this thread to see just how many false and misleading statements have been made by Mr. Benson. I find it remarkable that Mr. Benson and his friends are surprised and exasperated that WDNR does not support their misconceptions and yield to their strident demands with respect to how we do our jobs. I support and share their desire to create trophy muskellunge fisheries in waters where that is possible; but I reject the notion that ANY private individual or group, no matter how well-intentioned, should be allowed to dictate HOW the trained professionals achieve the goals we all share.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 4/12/2008 6:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | Dave,
Thanks for your patience in this matter. Form an outsider's perspective, it's been quite entertaining (probably not so much from yours  ).
I really think that you could have just as easily answered that with one of my favorite quotes:
'if i were asked to justify the decisions i make in how i do my job on a daily basis i would simply laugh and say, "because i know what i'm doing and you don't." - Michael "Lambeau" Winther'
Sorno
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Guest',
'Mr. Benson' speaks what he and his colleagues believe to be 'truth', admits he's no scientist, and then asserts those who disagree with his platform are biased, uninformed, or otherwise deficient. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who disagree with that (wmrt) platform, even those who are working scientists with impeccable and internationally recognized credentials, are subject to ridicule from that camp....based on what every single biologist we have spoken to believes to be less than pseudo science. We have asked time and again for this group to find a working fisheries biologist willing to support their platform, and in several years, none have stepped forward. That challenge is one the group still needs to meet for obvious reasons. We TRIED HARD to find a biologist working in the field of Muskie management, genetics, and associated field that WOULD support that platform, and found the overwhelming (as in all) majority dismissed the platform out of hand. If there is a working fisheries manager who would entertain an interview to rebut Mr. Neuswanger's interview and comments, PLEASE have them contact us and we'll offer an interview.
As we have attempted to do many many times, we provided the opportunity to read and listen to the response to the claims from this group, and the response from most reading and listening has been reasonable...with the exception of the last few from an anonymous sniper who hasn't the personal commitment to his viewpoint to use his real name.
In the response Mr. Neuswanger posted, he clearly addressed the document 'guest' refers to and why Mr. Benson's comments about that document were in his opinion misdirected. Perhaps if 'guest' would read that response and listen to the interview, he would be able to address the answers Mr. Neuswanger supplied with more than repetitions of the already clearly answered accusations.
In one of the posts on the Next Bite, we are accused of bias regarding the Muskie genetics issues the WMRT forwards. In actual fact, there IS a bias here, and it's toward exerting the effort to contact the scientists the WMRT openly challenge that despite their working experience and education are not as informed as they, and offer the data from those scientists so our readers can form an educated opinion.
It's up to each of us to decide what to believe considering all the data and facts. It's also our policy to see to it those who submit their beliefs here do so with some form of support more than unruly or rude assertions or accusations.
If that's bias, one may expect it to be what we will offer every time. |
|
| |
|
| A fisheries biologist who agrees with genetic concerns of the slow growing fish on the DNR's list can be found at:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/science/publications/PUBL_RS_572_96.pdf
"genetic factors also contribute to the small size of fish."
Please do not ignore this. |
|
| |
|
| Fact: The WMRT seemed to be right about getting out of Bone lake. The WDNR actions say this (they got out in a hurry), even if you can't get a biologist on record here.
Editor's Note:
This has been clarified SEVERAL times here in previous discussions on the issue. We will not revisit that ground again...please go read the entire argument and Dr. Sloss's recommendations and the REASONS for those recommendations. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Guest'
Thanks for posting that piece agian. Dave addressed this issue specifically in his response, so don't expect anything further. If you wish to make a point using data from that piece, please quote the piece in context and exactly, not paraphrased to fit your argument. That tendency IMO is the base inadequacy of most of the arguments posted by us laymen...because we don't grasp the science behind the studies posted, or the significance of the data OR the work itself to other scientists. the studies are not intended for us less informed and uneducated in that field of work.
Aside from that, as was stated, there is no support whatsoever that there are any genetic issues with the Muskies in Moose.
I have seen arguments from us laymen that the fish in moose should not be used as brood stock because they are going to be 'the same' as the genetics in the Chip...how could that be if your argument is correct? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
|
DAVE: One last time...
The FULL quote above was as follows: “Growth problems in Mud/Callahan Lake appear to be largely environmental but genetic factors also contribute to the small size of fish.” Largely environmental... in Mud/Callahan Lakes... NOT Moose Lake.
If "Guest" is going to cherry-pick facts, he could at least quote an entire sentence.
Here's another key paragraph in the paper cited above: “Asymptotic length predictions for both LCO and M/C muskellunge in Mud/Callahan were less than 30 inches for both male and female fish. The von Bertalanffy predictions for female LCO muskellunge were 29.1 inches compared to 27.2 inches for M/C females. Male muskellunge asymptotic lengths were similar (LCO = 28.5 inches, M/C = 28.6 inches). Using the upper 95% confidence limit of the von Bertalanffy prediction for asymptotic length extends the possible maximum length to 31.0 in for LCO muskellunge and 32.6 inches for M/C muskellunge.”
I realize some folks will wonder what the heck this means. What the authors are saying is that LCO muskies, which we know will grow to 50+ inches in Lac Courte Oreilles and other suitable waters, demonstrated a growth pattern early in life after being stocked into Mud/Callahan Lakes that suggests they eventually would have achieved no greater maximum size in Mud/Callahan than fish stocked from Mud/Callahan broodstock (less than 30 inches for both males and females). This is a highly speculative analytical exercise, so I don't place a lot of weight in it; but it's important to realize that the authors of this paper are saying that muskies with the known ability to achieve a maximum size of 50+ inches in many lakes could not be predicted to achieve even 30 inches, ultimately, in Mud/Callahan. THAT is why the authors concluded that growth problems in Mud/Callahan were LARGELY ENVIRONMENTAL.
And then we must acknowledge the limitations of this study, as the authors themselves did quite clearly by stating, “Insufficient replication of stockings of different muskellunge populations in study lakes, and low numbers of adult muskellunge recaptured made data analysis and conclusions from this study limited and difficult.”
So, in the end, we have a study with serious limitations that shows LCO fish don't grow well in Mud/Callahan. Not a word about Moose Lake in this study.
I will also share with astute MuskieFIRST readers that one of the authors of the above paper, Terry Margenau (my colleague and an excellent fishery scientist), participated in a meeting last month in Spooner where WDNR Northern Region fish supervisors decided where to go for muskellunge broodstock this spring. Terry supported our decision to use Moose Lake muskellunge, and he provided valuable data about Moose Lake from previous work he had done there.
I am really busy at this time of year and won't be able to keep up with the WXRZ spin machine; so this will have to be my last word on the subject of genetics and broodstock sources for now. I greatly appreciate the professional moderation here at MuskieFIRST that has allowed me to share WDNR information and rationale on a level playing field.
Now if only this snow would melt, we could get to work!
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
